D7100 vs D600 vs D800

Hi all,

I've vaguely asked this question elsewhere but it was just before the D7100 came out so there was no collective experience of it, and the post didn't get many hits anyway, so I thought I'd ask again.

I have a potential budget of £2000 to buy a new camera, and an IR conversion for my current D90, which I'll be keeping. Just because I have it, doesn't mean I have to spend it all though! In terms of lenses, I've got the kit 18-105VR, the 70-300VR, 50mm F1.8, and Sigma 10-20. I mainly shoot landscapes and low ISO, although I have also been called upon to shoot some portraits at work, and haven't been massively impressed with the higher ISO low light performance of my D90 with the SB800 (however maybe that's just my fault!) I do also appreciate zoom performance, so the crop factor is of benefit, but I may be overstating this. Pics tend to sit on my hard disk and do nothing or maybe get published to the web, but I'd love to think I'd like to blow some of them up and hang a few of the better ones up on the wall.

My lens of choice (mainly because its the most flexible) is the 18-105, with the other lenses rarely getting an outing (70-300 gets fairly regular usage, but I think I've used the 50mm and the 10-20mm twice in the 2 years I've had them... probably says more about me than the lenses to be fair!). Mainly I just don't want to or can't carry the extra weight (holidays), so I'm also considering a superzoom (Nikkor 18-300 DX or 28-300 DX / FX or AN Other similar lens) as an all-in-one replacement, certainly for the longer zooms (I guess quality of both the DX and FX lenses will be comparable with what I have across the 2 longer zoom lenses?).

So...


I'm considering the 3 cameras mentioned above, and I'm genuinely stuck between the 3. D7100 (cheapest I've seen is around £860) is obviously the sensible, safe, cheaper, easy (and newest!) choice. The D600 (cheapest I've seen was about £1200, but are Nikon doing cashback still?) appears to be a full frame D7000, so older and with fewer features than the D7100, BUT the advantages of full frame. The D800 (cheapest I've seen is about £1750) blows both out the water, but at a much much higher cost, in terms of camera, lens requirements and supporting computer hardware!

Initial 7100 reviews didn't look massively positive, but real world production model feedback on here seems far better. The review concerns were around image noise and low light performance, as well as the obvious buffer restrictions. However I'm guessing that it would blow my D90 out of the water on all counts? So whilst I thought I'd ruled it out (its been in and out of contention so many times), it may again be back in the running.

I'm not yet sold on full frame (which again says more about me!) but I kind of see the D600 as a step backwards from the 7100 in terms of functionality (and introducing potentially more expense in terms of lens replacements and compatibility with my D90). I feel that the D800 WOULD make going full frame worthwhile in terms of performance, but just put me into a world of pain trying to support it!

So what do you think? Is full frame really worth it? Am I just fixated on the MP count? Am I missing some real advantages with the D600? Is my D90 going to lose out if I do go full frame? Or is everything I'm saying just screaming D7100?

I'm also curious about your opinions of the lenses I'm maybe considering.

I'd really appreciate your thoughts!

James Blonde said:

I feel that the D800 WOULD make going full frame worthwhile in terms of performance, but just put me into a world of pain trying to support it!

Click to expand...

I have both D7000 and D800E. I had to spend almost $1k with my computer upgrade in order to have a faster processor, additional RAM, and HDD (6 tb) for storage of these RAW files and HD video. So that definitely needs some consideration on your part.

James Blonde said:

So what do you think? Is full frame really worth it? Am I just fixated on the MP count? Am I missing some real advantages with the D600? Is my D90 going to lose out if I do go full frame? Or is everything I'm saying just screaming D7100?

Click to expand...

I think if you share your thoughts first on why are you considering a FX camera will eventually answer your question. Why can't you just stay with DX? What are your expectations by having a FX camera?

My opinion will not matter if it is "worth it" or not because my answer will be yes since this is my hobby and I am more passionate about my equipment. My question to you is: Are you willing to buy more expensive and heavier lenses?

I think that if you do have a 2000 limit, you'd better stick it with DX. Otherwise, you'll miss lenses and you'll have to spend a lot more to get replacement FX lenses for the ones that would keep working if you'd stay with DX. If "continuous shooting" and the small buffer of the 7100 don't bother you, I'd go with this new guy on the block.

I own the D90 as well, and I can tell you, I am very bugged out by the ISO performance on it. I never shoot above 800 ISO. That being said, ISO performance on the newer DX DSLRs from Nikon (D7000, D7100) are much much better, not to mention the awesome low-light performance of FX cameras (D600, D800).
However, I don't think it's worth going to FX quite yet; I would stick to DX for the time being. IMO, with the release of the D7100, the D600 needs a bit of updating and is currently not worth it for the price. The D800 is quite a superb camera, but it comes with a price tag. Because your budget is dynamic(potential, not fixed), I would go for the D7100. If you actually do have a budget of £2000, buy a new lens that you'd like; it'd be a great addition to the ones you currently have.

Thanks all!

I guess one of the main reasons I'm looking at FX is (oddly enough) future-proofing! The others would be the increase in image quality (particularly for landscapes, although I can't really honestly complain too much about my D90 given what I do with it) and low light performance. (oh, and possibly just because its there and better and gimmickier and the next great thing...) The question is, do I make the jump now, or make the jump in another 5 years (how long I've had my D90) and concentrate on upgrading my glass? Or am I just writing off DX too early as you suggest. You may have started to swing me back to the D7100 again!!!

I think you've gotten the advice you need on the new camera front. But I would just caution you on the D90 conversion. I have one that I've pondered doing an IR conversion on, but heard that getting a proper white balance on it could be problematic. It's listed as one of a few problematic Nikons. Watch the video under the White Balance section and see what they're talking about. It was enough to scare me off of the idea - why invest a couple hundred dollars and wind up with a camera you can't use?

Camera Considerations | LifePixel Digital Infrared Photography IR Conversion, Modification & Scratched Sensor Repair

Thanks for the link and advice BackdoorHippie - I wasn't aware of that! I knew the D70 was a great conversion, so just assumed the D90 would be the same! On the other hand, I tend to shoot RAW anyway, and have the same problem with my D90 currently using long exposures on my Hoya R72 filter, so whilst it will require post processing, I'm having to do that anyway so I'm not yet overly concerned. However it might make me look at selling the D90 and getting a D3100 or similar just to make life easier....!

I shoot RAW as well, but the fact that you can't post-process in Photoshop to correct it but need to do so in CaptureNX2 means that I would have to dump even more money into software, and then software that may not be supported moving forward. When I absolutely have to have an IR camera I'll likely just sell the D90 and get something else just to convert it.

Hmm...back to the drawing board. Do I bother to upgrade my D90 if I'm not going to convert it. Theoretically the justification for the upgrade vanishes Slightly OT, but What were you thinking of converting if you went down the IR route?

Don't know. Would depend if I wanted to shoot video or just photos. When I dropped the idea for the D90 the rest of it went on the back burner. My brother shoots a ton of it (Canon) and I've basically told him to keep his eye out for a preconverted Nikon in his travels. He's a pro so he gets around and knows what is working correctly already. I'm in no hurry.

and you've got a much bigger market to choose from than I do! Not many second hand IR cameras of decent quality in the UK - most of the FleaBay ones are US based, which isn't necessarily a problem but even then they mostly seem to be compacts.

As a happy Nikon D7000 owner for more than two years, I immediately upgraded to the Nikon D7100. Rather than rehash all of the camera specs in this review, I'll focus on what has changed vis-a-vis the previous camera.

NEW 24.1 MEGAPIXEL SENSOR, 1.3x CROP MODE, NO AA FILTER

Although I didn't really care about having more megapixels, there are advantages. The most obvious is cropping and the NEW 1.3x CROP MODE is a nice feature if you are into bird & wildlife photography. This in camera crop converts lens focal length into 1.95 times the 35mm equivalent. (Usually DX cams have a 1.5x crop - this mode delivers and additional 1.3x.) So a 300mm lens that would normally perform as a 450mm on a DX (APS-C sensor) body now performs as a 585mm.